Commentators are right, modern society is polarised; it might even be ‘sick’. People seem to think in terms of enemies and allies, and forego compromise.
We saw it with the Brexit debate in the UK. We see it now in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I’ve even heard it in Guernsey referencing Muslim women wearing the hijab.
Disagreement is natural – we all have our opinions – but it weakens our communities when it morphs into the extremes. We can’t afford to let this happen because then dialogue disappears, contempt replaces open-mindedness and society fractures.
Few of us want that. After all, it is a moral good to accept difference and nurture tolerance. There’s nothing wrong in softening the sharp edges of our disagreements.
This isn’t some wish-washy, liberal wokeness. It isn’t a call for ‘performative moralism’ or cancel-culture. Rather, it’s recognising that a pluralistic society requires forbearance and some acceptance. Otherwise, how else are we going to live together with our different beliefs, cultures and identities?
We need to find a way to acknowledge and empathise with those we disagree with. This isn’t easy, I know. I struggle with it myself, on many levels, not least with a friend I’ve known for a long time.
I’m still shocked (and angered) when they write damning comments about liberal thinkers. It isn’t necessary and it hurts. I find myself muttering a whole load of stuff to myself. The challenge is to value friendship over ‘being right’, and to accept that this is just the way they are and there’s no need to engage with it.
It’s true that none of us like being mistaken, and if we insist on being right (because that eliminates fear) then someone else is going to have to be wrong. But defensive certainty isn’t admirable in anyone let alone ourselves. We all have our blind spots and we all have our intellectual limitations. If we insist on being right, we lose the chance to grow and learn.
In fact, people who don’t believe in a zero-sum game are better equipped to find solutions in the workplace or at home. They allow for respectful disagreement and favour the ‘strongest argument’ over their ego. They don’t see differing opinions as threats to their power or identity; they recognise them as opportunities to find mutual understanding and intellectual investigation. In short, they learn.
Of course, psychology isn’t the only explanation for the world we live in today. Social media has a serious role to play in all this.
We all know that it reinforces echo chambers. The less we are exposed to opposing positions, the more we react with shock and anger when we are. Marry this to the algorithms favouring aggressive and negative comments and the cycle of uncivil behaviour increases. After all, if you want to trigger the emotional responses that drive the ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ and ‘comments’, then attacking your opposer with extreme language works well. And, if you can be anonymous and therefore not accountable, then you can say what you like. It’s easier to bully people if you don’t have to meet them face to face.
Now, I accept that there is a ‘tolerance paradox’. The more tolerant you are of others, the more you allow intolerant movements to grow which can destroy the very tolerance that enabled them in the first place.
We do need boundaries in our discourse; we need to state clearly what isn’t acceptable. But that doesn’t mean we stop talking to each other. Civil and productive disagreement allows us to recognise the complexity of things and agree that respecting each person’s humanity and dignity is necessary for democracy.
This means we all need to moderate our behaviour. Some of us might have to challenge our tribal loyalties, while others of us will have to temper our outrage when we hear something we dislike or disagree with. Instead, we should take time to listen, talk, disagree and seek a compromise.
We can also remind ourselves that political and social identities do not define a person. And perhaps we can hope that schools will teach greater intellectual humility.
Underneath and beyond our disagreements is our shared humanity. We all experience the same challenges but in different ways, and we can all find a commonality in the sharing of this. As Plato once said, no one is having an easy time of it.
In the end, we have to decide what we value more: being right or living in a civil, kind society.
